how to deal with difficult past bosnia

7/28/2019 How to Deal With Difficult Past Bosnia

1/21

Volume 39Number 1February 2007

Journal ofCurriculumStudies J Cs

CONTENTS

OP EDCurriculum alignment, globalization, and quality assurance in South Africanhigher educationRia McDonald and Helen van der Horst

ARTICLESM oral qualities of ex periential narrativesCarola Conle1Making meaning together: multi-modal literacy learning opportunitiesin an inter-generational art programm eRachel M. Heydon5Theorizing content: tools from cultural historyKate Hawkey3How to deal with a difficult past? History textbooks supporting enem yimages in post-war Bosnia and HerzegovinaPilvi Torsti7An uncertain harvest: a case study of implementation of innovationJohn M. Rogan7ACKNOWLEDGEMENT23


2/21

How to deal with a difficult past? History textbooks supportingenemy images in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina

PILVI TORSTI

This study examines the national division of history teaching in Bosnia and Herzegovina inthe war and post-war period. The process of division of schooling into three curricula (BosnianSerb, Bosnian Croat, and Bosniak) is presented. Representations of other national groups arecentral in 8th-grade history textbooks used by the three national communities. 'The others', themembers of other national groups of the country, are typically presented through enemyimages. This study discusses the strength and influence of hetero-stereotypes of historytextbooks and their consequences for reconciliation and reconstruction of a multiculturalsociety.

History typically forms part of the construction of national identity in a society.The history curriculum is designed to tell the story of 'our nation' or 'our state' indifferent times. The rhetoric used is typically that of 'Finland' or 'Germany' doingsomething as an active subject of history. From this it follows that textbooksnecessarily undergo a major change after significant political changes. In the last15 years, this has been clearly visible, especially in former socialist countrieswhere the Marxist principle has been replaced by the national organization ofhistory textbooks.

Perhaps the most aggressive change in history textbooks and curriculum hastaken place in the former Yugoslavia. Change has been aggressive because manyof the new states that resulted from the break-up of Yugoslavia became warringenemies. Thus, not only was the Marxist principle replaced by the national onein history textbooks but also the group that used to be 'ours' became partly 'our'enemy.

Of all the former Yugoslav republics, Bosnia and Herzegovina has becomethe most complicated case from the point of view of history teaching andcurriculum. Since the war (1992-1995), the three major national groups of thecountry (Serbs, Croats, and Bosnian Muslims, i.e. Bosniaks) have used differenttextbooks and followed different curricula. I have analysed history teaching andtextbooks as one case study of the presence of history within the society as part

of a broader analysis of the meaning of history in post-war


3/21

78

Bosnia and Herzegovina (Torsti 2003). One of the text analyses concentrated onthe presentation of 'us' and 'them' in history textbooks used in the last year ofobligatory schooling (8th grade). As 'them', I understood the other formerYugoslav national groups, those who had been part of 'us'. One of the findings ofthe analysis was the centrality of 'them' in the presentations, which becomesparticularly significant in the light of the definition of Bosnia and Herzegovina asa multicultural society with three official national groups in the process of bothphysical and mental reconstruction after a cruel and destructive war.

The books analysed can be seen as reflecting the history teaching andcurricula in the war and post-war period from the early 1990s up to the 21stCentury. Thus, we can talk about analysing war and post-war history teaching inBosnia and Herzegovina. In the following I will first present the textbooksanalysed in my research and describe briefly the textbook check those books

underwent, together with other textbooks used in Bosnia in the late 1990s, as aresult of the intervention of the international community present in Bosnia andHerzegovina. Secondly, I will present the main features of the representation of'them' in each of the textbooks and draw some conclusions from therepresentations and discuss the consequences and effects of them within thesociety at large. I will conclude with wider discussion stemming from myresearch on post-war societies and their relation to their past.

Materials analysed1

At the onset of the Bosnian war (1992-1995), the old Yugoslavian school system

was still in place in Bosnia, as were the textbooks designed for the federalrepublic of socialist Yugoslavia. During the war, each local area adopted its owncurricula and school books. The areas under the control of the Serb armyborrowed books and curricula from Serbia, and the areas under the control of theCroatian forces (HVO) from Croatia. In Bosnian-controlled areas, the productionof new textbooks and curricula was initiated, reflecting the ideology of theintegral and civic state of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Magas 1998: 4-5, 8, Lenhart etal. 1999: 11-12, Low-Beer 2001: 216).

The political and administrative divisions that arose during the war wereretained in the Dayton peace settlement: Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) wasdivided into two entities, the Bosnian Serb Republic (RS) and the Federation ofBosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH). The latter consists of10 cantons of which sevenare Bosniak-dominated and three Croat-dominated. RS developed its owncentralized educational system and FBiH had a divided system in which each ofthe 10 cantons followed either Bosnian or Croat curricula depending on thedominance of one or the other group in the canton.

Agreements were signed and attempts taken to unify the curricula andprogrammes of teaching within the Federation and between the entities in 1999-2002, but with very few concrete results. The international community in Bosniamade education one of its priorities in 2002 and in November 2002 the strategicplan for educational reform, signed by all the ministers of education, waspresented to the Peace Implementation Council which funds and


4/21

79

co-ordinates the Bosnian peace process. Laws of re-integration were passed in2003 and there have been some signs that, over the long run, the educationalsystem, which is divided into three in a country of 4 million people, mightbecome more unified, or at least harmonized. Nevertheless, at the time ofwriting, education, as it is organized and conceived, has continued to deepenintra-national divisions and aims to create or consolidate ethnically-pureterritories (Magas 1998: viii). Children are separated according to their nationalgroups, and in some places one group goes to school in the mornings while theother national group uses the same building in the afternoons (Beecroft 2002).The problem has not been so much the existence of three educationalprogrammes as that the programmes have so clearly served nationalistic politics(Muli-Buatlija 2001).

This analysis concentrates on the 8th-grade history textbooks used in theschools in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1999-2000 school year. Istorija (Gaeaet al. 1997) and Dodatak (Peji 1997) were used in the schools of the Serb Republic(RS) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The book Istorija was published and printed inthe capital of Serbia proper, Belgrade. Dodatak was an additional booklet writtenby a Bosnian Serb professor of history from Banja Luka, the capital of theBosnian Serb Republic. It was used in the RS only. Bosnian Serbs developed theirown 8th-grade book (Peji 2000) in 2000 which largely followed the structure andcontents of the older Serb book. Povijest (Peri 1995) was first published in thebeginning of the 1990s and different editions of the book have been used in theBosnian Croat-dominated schools for the entire decade. Historija (Imamoviet al.1994) was written and published during the war in Bosnia. The book was

completed in Sarajevo and then printed in Slovenia no publishing houses wereworking within Bosnia and Herzegovina at that time. A new Federation bookappeared in 2001 with half-Latin, half-Cyrillic alphabets (Ganibegoviet al. 2001).It was mostly a copy of the old texts but now with half written in the Cyrillicalphabet, and it underwent only a few changes in regard to the previous one.

Based on discussions with teachers in 30-40 schools and the informationavailable from the ministries of education in Bosnia, it appears that historytextbooks also carry the role of curricula for history teachingtypically theteachers receive no other instructions or information. Thus, in conclusion, it canbe said that the books analysed in this paper, from the 1999-2000 school year,represent the type of history textbooks and history curricula in use in Bosnia forabout 10 critical war and post-war years from 1992-1993

to 2003.

Textbook check

In 1999, Bosnia and Herzegovina applied for recognition by the Council ofEurope. One of the minimum requirements for accession was the withdrawal ofpotentially offensive material from textbooks before the start of the 1999-2000school year. In July 1999, all the ministers of education signed the agreement todo so: The Agreement on Removal of Objectionable Material from Textbooks to be usedin Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1999-2000 School


5/21

80

Year. In August 1999, a second agreement was signed which established theprocedure for removal of the objectionable material: there was insufficient timeto produce new textbooks (Low-Beer 2001: 219, Annex l).

The Council of Europe and Office of the High Representative, the Officeestablished for the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, formed acommission of trusted Bosnian teachers and academics who represented thethree national groups. The group worked for one week behind closed doors withthe representatives of the Council of Europe and the Office of the HighRepresentative. The commission of Bosnians identified and issuedrecommendations concerning the objectionable material which internationalrepresentatives of the Council of Europe and Office of the High Representativeaccepted with amendments. There were two categories for the identifiedmaterials: either they were to be removed or annotated. Material was removed

by blackening the text, and then annotated with the following stamp: 'Thefollowing passage contains material of which the truth has not been established,or that may be offensive or misleading; the material is currently under review'(Kieffer 2005).

New books were only partly printed for the 2000-2001 school year and it islikely that many schools continued to use the blackened and stamped textbooks.When visiting three schools at the beginning of the 2002-2003 school year, the oldbooks were still in use in two of the three schools. Stories were also circulating asto how easy it is to read the blackened paragraphs against the window. Thus,these 'forbidden' texts gained even more importance as the pupils took aparticular interest in them.

The agreement to remove the objectionable material from textbooksconcerned the primary and secondary school books in geography, motherlanguages, visual culture, history, music culture, music, economy and society,and knowledge of society. The books analysed in this research were part of thisprocess. No objectionable material was identified in Historija, the book used byBosniak-dominated schools: the book did not use terms or phrases directlyantagonistic towards other national groups and the interpretations of the bookcould be considered historically tenable. In Istorija, the book published inBelgrade and used in the RS, one paragraph was to be removed and five pagesannotated as questionable. The annotated pages dealt with the history since thenew constitution of Yugoslavia in 1974, which was interpreted as an injusticeagainst Serbs. The paragraph to be removed from Istorija (Gaea et al. 1997: 157)was deemed to constitute simply propaganda, not a problematic interpretation:

Through the Catholic Church and its fanatical followers, the fight was ledagainst the Orthodox religion and Serbs. It seemed almost as if the situationfrom 1941 was repeating. Serbian people had to move out of Croatia, Serbswere tortured and innocent people were killed in the same horrible way as50 years ago. Entire Serbian villages were robbed and burnt down, theOrthodox churches were destroyed, and graves and sacred placesdesecrated.

In the additional Bosnian Serb booklet, Dodatak, the entire part (5 pages)describing the disintegration of Yugoslavia was ordered to be removed. Inaddition, the page presenting the events between the two world wars wasordered to be annotated as questionable.


6/21

81

In Povijest, five sentences had to be removed; all were hostile to the Serbs andused such expressions as 'Great Serbian aggressors'. In addition, 22 pages had tobe annotated as questionable material in that they systematically describedCroatia as a 'home country', a view considered intolerable for a Bosnian-usedtextbook.

Representation of 'them' in history textbooks

The representations of 'them' in history textbooks used by the Bosnian nationalcommunities were analysed by collecting all references to other Yugoslavnational groups in each textbook. By collecting all possible references I wanted toavoid the risk of a more selective and pre-categorized data collection and

analysis and to guarantee that such a sensitive topic as 'nation' in today's Bosniawould be treated without risk of selecting only the examples and expressionsthat support the commonly (and even unconsciously) held views of differentnational groups. After a test sampling, it was decided to collect only the localreferences; any other references to nation(s) were rare. The 'local' wasunderstood as South Slavic (Yugoslav).2 The following presents a summary ofthe findings.

Povijest: Bad Serbs and dysfunctional Yugoslavian unity

In the Croat book Povijest, the basic 'others' are the Serbs. The presentation of

'them' can be divided into two overlapping categories: one stereotype refers tothe Serbs as a central part and architects of the Yugoslavian formations'considered negative throughout. This stereotype is of a structural nature; theSerbs represent certain (negative) structures. The other analytical category usedhere is based on the characterization of Serbs as a people or nation. The mostcommon words used to construct this characterization include 'Great Serbia','Great-Serbs', and 'chetnik\

The negative presentation referring to Serbs as architects and leaders ofYugoslavia starts with the description of the planning of the First South Slavicstate and the position of Serbs: 'Serbian politicians ... wanted to carry out theunion of South Slavic countries by joining them to Serbia so that in this way thenew united South Slavic state would have a Serbian name New Serbia or GreatSerbia' (pp. 11-12). Povijest also mentions how the leader of the Serbs was notsatisfied with the Korfu declaration (which established the new state) because itmade it possible that the Serb hegemony would be threatened.

Typical of the descriptions of Yugoslavian formations is the idea of Croatsand Croatia suffering. Povijest describes the formation of the first Yugoslavia:'Melting into the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, on 1 December 1918,Croatia lost its statehood which it had steadily maintained until then for morethan a thousand years' (p. 13). The description of the first Yugoslavia follows forfour pages under the heading: 'First expressions of Croat dissatisfaction in thekingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes' (pp. 20-23). Later it is stated that cautionin the First Yugoslavia resulted


7/21

82

from the 'existence of Great-Serbian strivings' (p. 29). The creation of the newstate is described provokingly in a contemporary drawing or leaflet, consideredto be 'from the year of the unification'. In the picture stands an army with horsesattacking villagers dressed in national costumes. Many of the villagers arealready lying dead on the ground and the soldiers are pictured as shootingcontinuously. The soldiers carry the Serbian flag and the picture bears the text:'This is Croatian freedom!' The picture thus clearly presents the Serbs as soldiersand murderers attacking Croats.

In the three-page chapter entitled 'The position of Croatia in the chains ofcentralism and Great-Serbian hegemony' (pp. 63-65), Povijest presents theabsolute misery of Croats in the First Yugoslavia, which is described 'asexpanded Serbia (that is enlarged, Greater Serbia), in which they [Serbs] felt and

behaved like Great-Serbs, pressing and tyrannizing other nations'. Povijest alsomentions how Serbs enjoyed all important positions from the beginning and theratio of Serbs to Croats in public state positions is listed separately. In thedescription of the economy of the First Yugoslavia, Povijest reports that Serbsenjoyed all the benefits while Croats suffered when the value of the currencywas changed. Finally, no governmental funds were allocated to developingZagreb, capital of Croatia, but all the money went instead to the development ofBelgrade, the capital of Serbia.

In total, Povijest devotes 41 pages (Historija, 23 pages; and Istorija, 15 pages)to local events in the inter-war years, thus the description is very detailed. Thebasic message of the period is that the system was in all possible waysdetrimental to Croats because the Great-Serbian regime, and hegemony, ruledunfairly.

In the Second Yugoslavia, the word 'communist' is emphasized and they areclearly presented as 'others/them'.3 The position of Croatia in the new Yugoslaviais first discussed structurally and then interpreted as only formally a federalstate:

The power and state arrangements of newly created Yugoslavia werearranged according to the Soviet model as a centralized communist statewith inherited Serbian supremacy. In such a state, national manifestationwas smothered, especially that of non-Serb nations. (p. 129)

Serb privileges are contrasted with the position of Croats:

In the Federal Nations' Republic of Yugoslavia, in which national equalitywas also guaranteed with the constitution, Serbs were 'more equal' (more

privileged). Serb privileges in the public services were visible throughoutCroatia, and the Croats, in the name of ostensible 'brotherhood and unity',had to tolerate their own inequality. (p. 130)

The presentation of Serbs as unfairly privileged in communist Yugoslavia ischaracteristic. Povijest continues the description of Serbs in socialist Yugoslavia,describing how agrarian reforms caused more Serbs to move to Croatia,'colonization' (p. 134). Finally, according to Povijest, mainly Serbs andMontenegrins worked in Yugoslav embassies abroad while all the Croats abroadwere considered ustaas (the ustaa movement headed the puppet Croat stateunder German and Italian support during the Second World War) (p. 137). Withregard to the 1990s, Povijest once more connects the structural state formations tothe Serbs when it recounts how


8/21

83

Serbia introduced a special customs fees on Croatian and Slovene products(p. 147).

As a second analytical category for analysing the 'enemy' image of Serbs inthe Croat book, I used the general characterization of Serbs. The presentation ofSerbs is negative throughout and the most commonly used references are'Greater Serbia' and 'Great-Serbs'. Generally, the language used is often colourfuland expressive. In a detailed description of the incident, the person who shot theCroat representatives in parliament with a pistol in 1928 is said to have sought'to protect the interest of the Serbian nation, the interests of their fatherland' (pp.42-43). After the shooting he shouted 'Long Live Greater Serbia'. Moreover,Povijest indicates that the shooter was treated extremely well in prison and hiswife given a special pension. According to Povijest, the assassination showed 'theextreme brutality of Great-Serbian hegemony in the kingdom of SHS'.

In the chapters on the inter-war years, the permanent subjects of the textinclude 'Serbian hegemony', 'Great Serbs', and 'the Great Serbian regime': theGreat Serbs 'persecuted Croats peasants for not wanting to vote'; 'the Great Serbswere persistently against equality'; and so forth. One page displays a picturewith coffins of Croat peasants shot by 'Great Serbian gunmen' with the picturecaption entitled 'The sacrifices of Stibinja' (pp. 46, 66-69). The book fails,however, to identify Great Serbia, or who the Great Serbs are.

Regarding the period of the Second World War, the common group of 'them',and the negative actors in Povijest, is the group described as 'occupiers, ustaasand chetniks' (e.g. pp. 97-98). In the chapter 'Croatia at the end and immediatelyafter the end of the Second World War' the 'chetnik terror' is presented separatelyand in detail, and with a direct connection to Serbs. The most gloating

description emphasizing the brutality and cruelties of the others is the two-pagestory of Bleiburg. Here 'they' are the partisans, but the passage specifically noteshow the Serbs formed the majority of the partisans (p. 112): 'Before handing overor capturing those masses of soldiers and civilians, partisans (predominantlyunder the command of honoured officers of Serbian nationality) committedhorrible, evil crimes'. The emotional references to the Serbs during the socialistYugoslavia period (which we previously saw presented as a negative systemthroughout) are related to the relation between Croats and ustaas:

To fetter and frustrate the Croats even more, they imposed the unfairburden of ustaa war crimes. The number of ustaa sacrifices was soexaggerated that it appeared as though in Jasenovac alone [i.e. the mostfamous ustaa camp] more Serbs were killed than the number of humansacrifices during the war in the whole of Yugoslavia. (p. 129)

In the presentation of the 1980s, the description of Serbs as Great Serbiannationalists intensifies (p. 140). Povijest mentions how the Serbs were dissatisfiedafter the constitution of 1974, but managed finally to change it in 1988. Even that,however, was not enough for a Serbia that sought to strengthen statecentralization in order to realize 'its hegemonic, Great Serbian interests andweight'. According to Povijest, all this was proved by the anniversary celebrationin 1989 of the 600th anniversary of the


9/21

84

Kosovo battle in 1389. As part of the celebration the pretend coffin of PrinceLazarus was carried through Serbian cities and villages.

In the part describing the events of the 1990s (pp. 150-152), the thoroughlyanti-Serb presentation spares no words. The chapter entitled 'The war of Great-Serbian Power against Croatia' begins by presenting both Yugoslavias as GreatSerbian projects. It mentions that the Great Serbian politicians were alarmedwhen socialist Yugoslavia started to decay. From that point on, Povijest describesthe events with constant references to Serbs. The following presents a sample ofthe expressions used:

They [i.e. Serbs] all talked openly about the creation of Great Serbia,which would, as they imagined in their lust for foreign territories, includeBiH and large parts of Croatia.

In their oppressor-like expansionism, Great-Serbs [i.e. followers of theidea of creating Greater Serbia] got away with the politics of genocide inthose areas stated for the creation of the ethnically-clean area (whichmeant expelling or killing Croats, Muslims, and all remaining non-Serbiannational groups in those areas, so that only Serbs would remain).

Great-Serbs, rebellious Serbs in Croatia, spread various untruths to justifytheir procedures with these powerful fabrications.

They emphasized that Serbs were 'jeopardized', but nobody and nothingjeopardized them. On the contrary, they had jeopardized peace, order,security and the lives of others with their barricades, attacks, robberies,and assassinations.

The rebellious Serbs were a 'barehanded', unarmed nation. Yet those rebels werearmed not only with light weapons, but with heavy arms also, which they hadgot from Serbia and from the so-called confederal 'Yugoslavian people's army'.

Serb terrorists and the so-called 'Yugoslavian people's army' (under thecommand of the Great Serbian generals and politicians) committed manyand more crimes in Croatia.

In their hatred towards everything which is Croatian, the Great Serbstried to kill as many people and destroy as many material goods aspossible.

They slaughtered, shot, hung, massacred, robbed, burned, and trans-ported people to numerous collective camps not only in Glin and Knin,but also elsewhere, even in the territory of Serbia.

Serbia, which started, supported, and managed it all (with the help of itsterrorist groups, the so-called 'Yugoslavian people's army' and theirpublic media) maintained, and deceived the world into believing, that it isnot at war. (pp. 150-152)

Through the Greater Serbian idea, Povijest concentrates on portraying the Serbsas expansionist and having a lust for territories. The acts of Serbs are presentedas violent and harsh, thus constructing the idea of barbaric Serbs. Povijest'sdescription also includes the presentation of Serbs' self-image as consciouslyfalse, trying to establish an image of jeopardized and unarmed victims not atwar. Thus, Povijest describes the Serb strategy as one of


10/21

85

presenting themselves as victims; their hatred towards Croats is seen as the Serbmotive for war.

Istorija: Serbs' anti-Croat spirit

The presentation of other South Slav nations in the Serb-used textbook Istorijafocuses on the negative description of Croats. Another group mentioned, mainlyin the context of the last 30 years, is Albanians. Except for Croats and Albanians,other national groupsexcept for the Montenegrins, who are seen as parallel toSerbs throughout the bookbarely receive mention. The anti-Croat presentationconcentrates on two issues: the ustaa state and the Catholic Church. Thereferences to Croats before the Second World War are insignificant; they do not

conform to any particular pattern and were neither constant nor consistent.For their part in the Second World War, the Croats are described as traitors

(Gaea et al. 1997: 103). The language hardens and negative references to Croatsintensify when Istorija comes to describe the ustaa state (Gaea et al. 1997: 106):

The ustaas,being extreme nationalists, chauvinists, and racists, tried tobuild their country and its institutions based on the example of Hitler'sGermany. They would use all possible methods to create an ethnically purestate. They would say that the Serbs were different from the Croats in termsof religion and race, and this is why they liquidated them, converted them,and expelled them from the country.

Here, Istorija describes the Croat ustaas as destroying other nations, and with

such expressions as 'racist' and 'chauvinist'. The crimes committed by ustaas aredescribed vividly and in detail. In 1942, 'Besides these mass killings, hundreds ofwomen, children and old people were sent to concentration campsthe campsof deathand most of these were in the territory of the Independent CroatianCountry'. The reference to Croats is clear when discussion involves 'the CroatianCountry'. Istorija also presents the Jasenovac camp in detail as 'the camp of death'which will forever remain in the memory of the Serbian people. Referring toustaas as subjects, Istorija comments that 'they' called the camp 'theconcentration and work camp of Jasenovac' and that 'they' buried bodies in massgraves(pp. 120-121).

A separate chapter concentrates on religions under the title 'Religions inYugoslavia: Reasons for division and quarrels on religious grounds' (p. 96). The

chapter emphasizes how the different attitudes of the churches were significantduring the Second World War. The Catholics (Croats) are strongly blamed: 'TheRoman Catholic Church, and to some extent the Muslim organization, wantedYugoslavia to fall apart and they supported the occupation, the establishment ofa Croatian state and genocide of the Serbs in it'. Istorija tells how the Orthodoxpatriarch was kept in jail in the Dachau concentration camp, and how more than200 Orthodox priests were also murdered 'in this massacre'. 'The Roman CatholicChurch did not blame anyone. On the contrary, it tried to convert a large numberof Serbs during difficult war


11/21

86

conditions to Roman Catholicism'. When discussing the ustaa movement, Istorijaalso emphasizes (p. 106) how the highest representatives of the Catholic Church

never even tried to say anything against the ustaa. Thus, here the CatholicChurch and the Croatian state are connected, with the church presented assupporting the ustaa state. The chapter on religions in Yugoslavia concludes bylinking the presentation of the Catholic Church to the events in recent history:

the hostile attitude of the Roman Catholic church towards Yugoslavia hasnot changed much during its 70 years of existence ... The Roman Catholicchurch also thought that the rights of Roman Catholics would be in dangerbecause they lived in a country where most of the people were Orthodox.This is why the Vatican was among the first to accept the separation ofCroatia and Slovenia from Yugoslavia. (p. 96)

The most outrightly hostile language is, however, used when describing theactions of Croats and Catholics in the 1990s:

The role of the Vatican's politics in the 'Yugoslav syndrome' is alsosignificant. The fight was led against the Orthodox religion and againstSerbs with the help of the Catholic Church and its fanatical followers. Itseemed almost as though the situation from 1941 was repeating. Serbianpeople had to flee from Croatia. Serbs were tortured and innocent peoplewere killed in the same horrible way as 50 years ago. (p. 157)

The other enemy group in Istorija, the Albanians, are mainly referred tonegatively in the presentations of the last 30 years. Regarding the 1974constitution, Istorija states that 'Albanian separatists pressured Serbs andMontenegrins to leave their property and to move out in order for Kosovo andMetohija to be ethnically clean' (pp. 153-154). The same description is repeatedlater, where Istorija mentions how a secret separatist organization later named

'The Kosovo alternative' started working and 'still works to tear down theconstitutional organization in Serbia and Yugoslavia'. The education systembecame Albanian, as well as local television, and that children startedconsidering Albania their home country instead of Yugoslavia. 'The history hasbeen falsified for a long period and the relations between Yugoslavia andAlbania were shown uncritically, and Serbia and Yugoslavia were blamed for thelow standard of living' (pp. 154-155).

Finally, Istorija refers to the Albanians as it tells how the spread ofnationalism was first observed in Kosovo and Metohija in 1981, when the'Albanian masses, according to the instructions of separatists and secessionists,acted very aggressively, demanding their republic' (p. 155). Thus, thepresentation of Albanians is entirely negative.

Dodatak: Croats hating the Serbs

As in Istorija, the negative references to 'them' in the Bosnian Serb additionalbooklet for history teaching, Dodatak, mainly involve Croats, but also Muslims.Before the First World War, when describing magazines published in BiH,Dodatak mentions (Peji 1997: 16) the Croatian Diary which 'wrote and askedpeople to hate Serbs and Yugoslavia in general'.


12/21

87

After the assassination of the Austrian Prince Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevoand the beginnings of the First World War, Dodatak tells how the Croats and

Muslims robbed and demolished the shops of the Serbs. A magazine entitledCroatia wrote: 'People are declaring a life-or-death struggle over the Serbs andtheir exile from the country. We have to deal with them once and for all anddestroy them. The Serbs are angry snakes and you are safe only when you killthem!' (p. 22).

In the chapter on the events in Croatia in the 1990s, the Croats are referred toas ustaas several times. Dodatak talks about 'ustaa methods', and a new countrythat 'functioned in all areas of political and social life like the former country ofthe ustaas'. The use of usta'a rhetoric here parallels the campaign of the Serbpropagandists in the 1980s against the Catholic Church and Croats whichAnzulovic (1999) has analysed. Croats are further described as 'clerical-nationalists' and Croatian soldiers are said to have:

killed Serbian women, children and old people in the most horrible way,they burned their houses and destroyed everything that belonged to Serbs .the lines of refugees were bombed by Croatian planes, and innocentwomen, children and old people were killed. (pp. 27-28)

The chapter entitled 'Civil war in BiH and the formation of the Serb Republic'presents a threatened and unfairly treated Serb nation against the oppressiveCroats and Muslims (p. 29). After the first multi-party elections, 'Muslim andCroat delegates joined the coalition and made all decisions without the Serbdelegates and damaged the Serbs. In a number of gatherings, Croats andMuslims tied their flags together and threatened the Serbian people'.

Dodatak claims that because of the danger of separation from their brothers inSerbia and Montenegro, Bosnian Serbs proclaimed the Serbian People's Assembly

but Muslims and Croats voted to separate BiH from Yugoslavia withoutrespecting the wishes and interests of Serbs. Thus, Dodatak represents thereferendum on the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina (where BosnianSerbs also lived) as 'their' referendum. The war is described as 'the attacks of theMuslim fundamentalists and Croat Cleric-nationalists' against Serbian people.Dodatak also mentions that there were mujahedins from Islamic countries whomassacred Serbs (p. 29).4 Finally, Dodatak tells how the Muslim and Croat armies,together with NATO, undertook a brutal offensive against the Serbs Republicand burned houses and killed people who failed to escape (p. 30).

Historija: Serb enemy images less central

The Bosnian textbook Historija generally concentrates much less on presentationsof others as enemies than the other texts and emphasizes more the Bosniandimensions of history. Typically, however, the 'others' throughout the book arethe Serbs (and Montenegrins, often referred to along with Serbs).5 The Croats, theother main 'they' within Bosnia, are only rarely referred to when Historijadiscusses the state formations which mention all three national groups and theirpositions.


13/21

88

The treatment of the Serbs begins (Imamovi; et al. 1994: 8) with theassassination of Franz Ferdinand. According to Historija, 'it was done by Serbian

nationalists' and started the First World War. When discussing the First WorldWar locally, Gavrilo Princip, the assassin of Franz Ferdinand, is described as 'amember of a group of nationalistic Serb youngsters who belonged to theorganization called Bosnian Youth (Mlada Bosna)' (p. 17). Historija mentions thatthe murder caused demonstrations against Serbs in Sarajevo and in some otherplaces.

Historija emphasizes the differentiation between the Bosnian Serbs andSerbia. According to Historija, Franz Ferdinand's murderers were in directcontact with officials in Serbia. It is emphasized that Bosnian Serbs remainedloyal to the existing system:

In BiH the feeling of fear dominated, especially among the Serb citizenry,and a group of Sarajevan Serbs led the way with the Orthodox

Metropolitan visiting the deputy president of the country government inSarajevo and expressing their loyalty and devotion to the Austrianemperor, and to the Austro-Hungarian state already on 1st August 1914. (p.18)

The presentation of the Serbs changes, however, when Historija starts todescribe the First World War (pp. 19, 21). Anti-Serb sentiment is said to havegrown as a result of the anti-Austrian politics of Serbs: 'Instructed by theexperience of Serbian-Montenegrin attacks in Eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina,Muslims established their different "protection forces" to defend themselves inthe event of more such attacks'.

In a unit entitled 'Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Yugoslav question', thepresentation of Serbs begins to point towards the idea of Greater Serbia. First

Historija describes how the Serbs 'emphasized that in this war Serbia was fightingnot only to take care of its sovereignty but simultaneously to liberate "all non-liberal brother Serbs, Croats and Slovenes"'. Emigrant Yugoslavian politiciansviewed the intentions of the Serbian government with great reservations 'whichlater proved justified'. It also mentions that the greatest Croat politician of thetime, Frano Supilo, 'because of the suspicious attitudes' of the Serbian president,wanted 'to clear the question of Great-Serbian hegemony in the future state' (pp.27-28). Thus, the clear message is that the Serbs cannot be trusted; even thoughthey claimed to want to liberate the brothers, the suspicions of others later'proved correct'.

Historija presents the Serbs entirely negatively when dealing with the inter-war period (pp. 54-55). The terror against Muslims is emphasized. References to

the doers are rare yet clear: the Montenegrins are said to have killed Muslims inSandak; and about the Serbs, it is said that 'the Serb army neither could norwanted to prevent that'. Historija also refers to the village of ahovic whereMuslim women and children are said to have been killed, and mentions that 'inthe place where ahovic once stood now lies the Orthodox village of Tomaevo'.Thus, Historija connects the atrocities perpetrated in ahovic to Orthodox Serbs.

In the years before the Second World War, Serbs are described as havingbeen against the movement that sought Bosnian autonomy: they supported 'theidea of Serbian supremacy in Bosnia and Herzegovina' (pp. 74-75).


14/21

89

The language hardens when discussing the Second World War. Under thesubtitle 'Chetnik genocide towards the Muslims in BiH', Historija states that:

Serbian-chetnik genocide toward Muslims has deep roots. On the one side,it is unreasonable religious hatred and intolerance, and on the other, thewill of Serb ideology and politicians to create an ethnically-clean territory atany cost. Therefore from the beginning of the war 1941, they carried out asystematic liquidation of Muslims, that is, a genocide. (pp. 96-97)

Chetnik documents are referred to and cited, using such expressions as'homogenous Serbia' and 'cleansed of non-Serb elements'.

There are, however, no further comments about Serbs in the Second WorldWar beyond the above-mentioned half-page sub-chapter on the chet-nikgenocide. The chapter on the local events of the Second World War concentrateson the partisan-led war of liberation and on the formations of the anti-fascistmovement.

In the text discussing the period after the Second World War, Serbs do notfigure as a particular enemy group. By contrast, in the chapter about more recenthistory, Historija describes the Serbs as enemies and destroyers:

Great-Serbian nationalists tried to prevent it [the declaration ofindependence] frightening the nation by accumulating a vast army andheavy armaments ... [The opposition] broke into open military aggression,carried out against our country by Serbia and Montenegro with the help ofthe former Yugoslavian national army and the terrorist formation of theSerbian Democratic Party (SDS) of Bosnia and Herzegovina . To realize theplan of 'Greater Serbia', everything that was not Serb was destroyed. (pp.129, 131)

It is worth noting that Historija describes Serbia and Montenegro as the main

aggressors and clearly isolates the Bosnian Serbs as a group. As part of theaggressors, Historija sees only those Bosnian Serbs who were from the SDS partyled by Radovan Karai. Historija presents that party as a terrorist formation,suggesting that only extremists participated in it.

Enemy images legitimize societal division

Ahonen (2001: 25) has defined historical stereotypes as images created in publicdiscourse (e.g. in school textbooks) to strengthen the identity of a group: either'ours' (auto-stereotypes) or 'them' (hetero-stereotypes). About hetero-stereotypesAhonen writes: 'The most powerful hetero-stereotypes are enemy images. They

are used to legitimize and provoke hostilities among groups.'As we have seen, the representations of others as hetero-stereotypes, anti-images, were part of the presentations of all three Bosnian national groups, yetthe intensities differed. The national groups that had been enemies in recent pastwere portrayed negatively through their actions in history. As a result of thiskind of approach, the reinforced stereotypes serve to maintain and justify thehostile attitude towards the others.6

Common to the hetero-stereotypical enemy images of all the books was theconnection between the present and the past. Several direct cross-referencesacross time were used (Imamovi: et al. 1994: 96, Peri: 1995: 7,


15/21

90

110, Gaea et al. 1997: 96): the Serbs 'had to defend their rights again withguns','the Serb-chetnik genocide on Muslims has deep roots', 'The Catholic church has

not changed its attitudes much in 70 years', 'what they [i.e. chetniks] did notsucceed into achieving then, they tried to achieve with an aggression towards therepublic of Croatia in 1991'. The story of Montenegrins killing hundreds ofMuslims 70-80 years ago in one village was concluded by telling that now in theplace of that village stands an Orthodox (i.e. Serb) village called Tomaevo (myemphases).

In addition to direct references, indirect references to the present situationwere also part of the presentations. The atrocities committed by Albanians,chetniks, ustaas, and so forth were described using similar terms for the historicalatrocities typical of the recent affairs. There was also an indirect reference to thepresent when Istorija discussed Albanian children considering Albania as theirhome country because they used Albanian schoolbooks in the 1970s and 1980s.

Borrowing the terminoloy of Moscovici (1988: 221-222), the presentations of'them' in history textbooks can be defined aspolemical representations. In contrastto 'hegemonic' and 'emancipated' representations, polemical representations aredetermined by the antagonistic relations between the members of society, andare intended to be mutually exclusive. Such representations do not serve anyform of reconciliation process within a society which, according to theconstitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, intends to be multinational andmulticultural. A multicultural society can better tolerate several different auto-stereotypes, conceptions of 'us', than find a way for hostile hetero-stereotypes,enemy images of national groups belonging to the same society to co-exist.7

Effect of history teaching

The school textbooks of former Yugoslavia have been the subject of increasinginterest in recent years in the context of Southeast Europe. Thus, the Centre forDemocracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe (CDRSEE) hosted severalworkshops on history teaching in Southeast Europe in 1999-2001 (Koulouri 2001,2002), and the conclusions are generally similar to those reported in this paper:8teaching is divided, interpretations are ethnocentric, the superiority of one groupand the inferiority of the others is central, as is the victimization of 'our' group. Inparticular, Serbian and Croatian books have been considered uncomfortablyclose to political propaganda. A Bosnian history teacher, Katz (2001: 64), who hasparticipated in workshops organized by CDRSEE, concluded that the first steptowards understanding and accepting the differences between the different

groups would require revised definitions of 'us' and 'them'. As in this study, Katzhas also noted how the textbooks often equated the past with the present, thusleading children to determine the future based on the past.

Hopken (1997: 93, 96-97) has also noted how history education in the formerYugoslavia has continued to be just as dogmatic as in the Tito era, offering noalternatives for the pupils. According to him, the aim of the education has notbeen to develop civic identity but to supply political elites


16/21

91

with legitimacy. In his view, the post-war history education seems to pave theway for the future confrontations.

Yet, despite similar conclusions in regard to the contents of the textbooks, wecan question the conclusions about the possibility of history education'determining' futures. Thus, in the CDRSEE workshop, the scholars representingvarious former-Yugoslav countries suggested that school history is ineffectivebecause it cannot compete with family history, or influences from the media,newspapers, and so forth (Koren 2002: 201). Even though brotherhood and unityhad been central to history education in the former Yugoslavia, everything thathappened in the 1990s repudiated these values.

However, while it is true that school history can hardly compete with theother media channels transmitting the knowledge of the past, what thisargument fails to take into account is that in the Bosnian post-war situation,textbooks and other channels of influence reinforce each other, i.e. their

interpretations and presentations are similar. School books enhance the effect ofother media, and vice versa,because their presentations resonate together.9 Thiswas most likely different in the former Yugoslavian case when at least familystories often contradicted the stories of school history textbooks, therebyreducing the effect of the textbooks.

Consequences of divided teaching

The national starting point in the teaching of and curricula for history can beseen as one form of identity politics, which Kaldor (1999: 78) has defined in termsof movements mobilizing around ethnic, racial, or religious identity for thepurpose of claiming state power. In contrast to the

politics of ideas,which for

Kaldor involves forward-looking projects, identity politics tends to befragmentary, backward-looking, and exclusive. Such politics are based on thereconstruction of heroic pasts, the memory of injustices, and sometimespsychological discrimination against those labelled differently from 'us'. Thesuccess of such identity politics in Bosnia is all the more telling when weremember that Bosnia had to reconcile three or four different conceptions ofhistory as part of the modernization process. Furthermore, as most Yugoslavscholars have pointed out, Bosnia appeared as the most pluralistic of all theYugoslav republics.

Deeply-dividing identity politics are most problematic in traditionallymulticultural communities where living together is 'objective inevitability',10 as isthe case in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition to creating mental barriers and

hatred, the division created by the politics of history has also had immensepractical consequences. The divided schooling, and history teaching, are amongthe factors that greatly inhibit the return of refugees to their pre-war homes inpost-war Bosnia.11 Parents have not wanted to return to areas where the childrenwould be subject to history teaching suggesting that their own national group isevil or inferior. The ethnic maps of Bosnia before and after the war, together withthe numbers of returned refugees, demonstrate how the return of refugees hasbeen one of the central problems of the Bosnian peace process. Schooling,among other


17/21

92

institutions, must be arranged in such a way that it supports the viable societyrather than deepens the divisions, which in turn makes the functional society

impossible.12

Post-conflict nations and the past

I wish to close with wider discussion stemming from this study: How do post-war nations come to terms with their past and what should be taken into accountas part of that process?

Education should be recognized as a long-term building block of a functionalcivil society. As a consequence, schooling, and in particular the teaching ofsubjects such as history and religion, should be subject to public interest anddecision-making. Thus, schooling should be an integral component of such

political documents as the Dayton Peace Agreement which ended the Bosnianwar. Kaldor (1999: 134-135) has argued that investment in free media andeducation is essential to stop relentless particularistic propaganda in the processof constructing an active civil society: 'These conditions are much moreimportant than the formal procedures of democracy'. Without such pre-conditions, elections can end up legitimizing the warring partiesas happenedin Bosnia and Herzegovina after Dayton. Soule (2000: 21), drawing on a study ofthe effects of civic education on the attitudes and behaviour of youth in Bosnia,has suggested that civic education can foster positive changes in young people'sskills, attitudes, and values.

The importance of opposing the diverging tendencies in education in amulticultural society is supported by experience and research in Northern

Ireland. Thus, a study from the late 1990s (Brocklehurst 1999) concluded that thesegregation of education and prejudices in teaching have long played key rolesin sustaining that conflict. Indeed, many educationalists have argued that schoolsare the main contributory factor to the conflict through their institutionalizedsegregation.

Thus, the research in Northern Ireland would suggest that in the long-term,nationally-divided schooling and the teaching of history through 'us' and 'them'as hostile groups, and with great emphasis on wars, can become the centralfactor in maintaining conflict. School is a central form of political socialization foryoung people. Such analyses further highlight the importance of acknowledgingthe power of history politics in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and elsewhere, whenthe aim is to find solutions to the conflict.

What measures could be taken? After decades of segregation, the spirit inNorthern Ireland in the 1990s emphasized the need to improve communicationbetween the schools. Three main strategies have been advanced: curricularinitiatives; inter-school links; and the development of integrated schools.'Education for mutual understanding' and 'Cultural heritage' have also becomecompulsory cross-curricular themes (Gallagher 1995).13 Thus, the experience inNorthern Ireland suggests that measures canbe taken even after a longtradition of hostile segregationif the serious consequences of the segregatededucation are acknowledged and are understood as linked to the 'objectiveinevitability' of living.


18/21

93

Secondly, and more particularly, the power of history and its presentationsshould be acknowledged in conflict and post-conflict nations and societies.

Examples of other countries outside Bosnia support this. Thus, in 1990, Israeliand Palestinian history textbooks were characterized by scholars as presenting'misconceptions, exaggerations, distortions and other unrealistic elements thatcontribute to the perpetuation of the conflict' (Pingel 2003: 343). Recently, morethan 10 years later, some changes have occurred (Pingel 2003: 349): instead ofhaving negative stereotypes of Israelis, new Palestinian textbooks attempt toavoid giving a clear picture of Israel and Israelis while promotingjihad andmartyrdom and presenting the Palestinians as a peace-loving, harmoniousnation. On the Israeli side, strongly negative opinions on Palestinians havedecreased. Thus, history textbooks remain a powerful source of dispute andcontinue to sustain the conflict, even if not as directly as in 1980s. It has beennoted (Mathias 2002: 437-438), however, that the overall change in textbooks inIsrael resulting from growing criticism of intellectuals and educationalists hasalready caused some textbooks to incorporate a more critical view on Israel and arevisionist approach on the War of Independence and Palestinians. This suggeststhat a demand for pluralism and a departure from the national state-orientedapproach within a society can enable a more critical and pluralist treatment ofthe past in a post-conflict situation. However, typically, this can only happenwhen enough time has passed since the conflict.

Of course, several factors influence how the past is dealt with in post-conflictsituations. One influencing factor is the question of guilt: Pingel (2003: 363) noteshow the post-Second World War history disputes between, e.g. Germany andPoland, have been easier to solve than, e.g. between Israel and Palestine oramong the Bosnian national groups. In the case of Germany and Poland, thequestion of guilt for past crimes and injustices was resolved as both sides agreed

that the German National Socialist system was to blame. Yet, based on a survey,Sander (1995: 185-196) has argued that the most effective tools in constructingand strengthening the negative image of Germans in Poland after the SecondWorld War were elementary and secondary schools.14

A good and concrete suggestion for finding ways to deal with the past inpost-conflict societies has been put forward by Pingel (2003: 366) in the Israel-Palestine context: the case of Israel and Palestine should be discussed togetherwith other conflict or post-conflict examples, e.g. Northern Ireland, Cyprus, orSouth Africa after apartheid. The comparative context can enable a criticaldealing with a difficult past more easily than can a purely national discussion.The timing can be critical; this study has shown how history can be used as muchfor 'unscrupulous exploitation and manipulation' as for 'analytical and critical

orientation for the future' (Immonen 1996).


19/21

94

Notes

1. I have translated all the quotations from textbooks used in the paper.2. Generally the methodology developed was based on the principles of Pingel's (1999)UNESCO Guidebook on Textbook Research and Textbook Revision, and in particular on thechapter 'How to conduct a project: methodological issues and practical guidelines' (seeTorsti 2003: 163-165).

3. See Peri (1995: 127), where first it describes what Croats thought, and then what thecommunists thought.

4. Lehti (2000: 133-134) has argued that the Serbs were the only ones seeing the conflictsin former Yugoslavia as clashes of civilizations; this viewpoint suited their aims.

5. In a study of primary and secondary school history textbooks, Baranovi (2001: 20)concluded that Serbs are most often mentioned as an enemy in the Bosniak textbooks.

6. It can also be noted that this finding also seems true when discussing other periods ofhistory in different grades. In her analysis of former-Yugoslavian textbooks, Karge(2000, 2002) mentions how, particularly in the Croat and Serb books, the idea ofperceiving other ethnic groups as a threat to one's national existence can be traced back

as a leitmotiffrom the Middle Ages to modern history.7. For example, it is possible to arrange practical functions, such as schooling, to supportthe separate auto-stereotypes of various groups as part of creating a viable society.However, this becomes impossible if the hostile hetero-stereotypes of 'others' dominatethe identity-construction of those various groups.

8. See Dragonas and Frangoudaki (2001: 37-47); Karge (2000, 2002); Koren (2002: 193202);Koulouri (2001: 15-25); Najbar-Agii (2002: 232-248); Repe (2001: 89-92);

and Stojanovic (2002: 249-253).9. For the features of history culture, see Torsti (2003: 117-140).10. The term was used by Krinik-Bukic (2001: 113) who argued that an awareness of

objective inevitability of living together in Bosnia and Herzegovina has ripened in theyears after the Dayton Agreement.

11. The ideal of unification is at the heart of the Dayton Peace Agreement, and, therefore,is among the major goals of the international community in Bosnia. Naturally thereturn of refugees is crucial to such an ideal.

12. Doubt (2000: 143) has accurately noted how the functional society was killed as aresult of the Bosnian war. Rather than emphasizing the genocide he would call thewar a 'sociocide'.

13. Of the three-mentioned strategies, integrated schools can be assessed based on thelevel of attendance. The first integrated school in Northern Ireland was established in1981. By January 2002, the number of integrated schools had increased to 46. About4% of the school population of Northern Ireland attended such schools in 2002. SeeConflict Archive in the Internet (CAIN) Web Service (n.d.).

14. The most recent example of acknowledging the power of the presentation of history inpost-conflict situation comes from Iraq, where history textbooks were revised inNovember 2003 under the leadership of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority.The texts were not only totally 'deSaddamized', but all potentially controversial topicswere also deleted. This deletion included anything critical of the US, and generallymost of the modern history of the Middle East that has affected Iraq ('Teaching historyin Iraq'

2003).

References

Ahonen, S. (2001) Stereotypes of peoples and politics in Estonian and Finnish historytextbooks. Euroclio Bulletin, 14(1), 25-28. Annex 1 (Revised) (n.d.) List of

objectionable material to be removed or annotated intextbooks for schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the 1999-2000 school year.Document in the possession of the author. Anzulovi, B. (1999) Heavenly Serbia: From

Myth to Genocide (New York: New YorkUniversity Press).

Baranovi, B. (2001) History textbooks in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. InterculturalEducation, 12(1), 13-26. Beecroft, R. (2002) Interview, 17th September 2002 in Sarajevo.

The tapes in the possessionof the author.


20/21

95

Brocklehurst, H. (1999) The nationalisation and militarisation of children in NorthernIreland. Available online at: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/children/brocklehurst/

brocklehurst99.htm, accessed 25 March 2006. Conflict Archive in the Internet(CAIN) Web Service (n.d.) Background Information on

Northern Ireland SocietyEducation. Available online at: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/educ.htm, accessed 25 March 2006. Doubt, K. (2000) Sociology after Bosnia and Kosovo:

Recovering Justice (Lanham, MD:Rowman & Littlefield). Dragonas, T. and Frangoudaki, A. (2001) The persistence of

ethnocentric school history. InC. Koulouri (ed.), Teaching the History of Southeastern Europe (Thessaloniki, Greece:Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe), 37-47. Availableonline at: http://www.cdsee.org/history_see.html, accessed 30 March 2006. Gaea,

N., Mladenovic-Maksinovic, L. and Zivkovi, D. (1997) Istorija za 8. razredosnovnekole [History for the 8th Grade of Primary School] (Belgrade: Zavod za udbenike inastavna sredstva).

Gallagher, A. M. (1995)Majority Minority Review 1: Education in a Divided Society: A Reviewof Research and Policy (Coleraine, UK: University of Ulster). Available online at: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/csc/reports/majmin1s.htm#contents, accessed 27 March 2006.

Ganibegovi, M., Durmisevi, E. and Pelesi, M. (2001) Historija za 8 razred osnovne skole[History for the 8th Grade of Primary School] (Sarajevo: Svjetlost).

Hpken, W. (1997) History education and Yugoslav (dis-)integration. In M. Bokovoy, J. A.Irvine and C. Lilly (eds), State-Society Relations in Yugoslavia 1945-1992 (London:Macmillan), 79-104.

Imamovi, M., Pelesi, M. and Ganibegovi, M. (1994) Historija za 8. razred osnovne kole[History for the 8th Grade of Primary School] (Sarajevo: Republika Bosna iHercegovina ministarstvo obrazovanja, nauke i kulture).

Immonen, K. (1996) Historian lsnolo [The presence of history] (Turku, Finland: Turunyliopisto).

Kaldor, M. (1999) New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era (Oxford: PolityPress).Karge, H. (2000) Between euphoria, sober realisation and isolation: how Europe is

presented in the history textbooks of Former Yugoslavian countries. Paperpresented at the International Conference 'The image of Europe between

globalization and national consciousness: Traditional concepts and recentdevelopments in the teaching of history, geography, and civic education in thecountries of the European Union, Eastern Europe and the Balkans'. Turin, 2000.

Karge, H. (2002) Between euphoria, sober realisation and isolation: how Europe ispresented in the history textbooks of Former Yugoslavian countries. In C. Koulouri(ed.), Clio in the Balkans: The Politics of History Education (Thessaloniki, Greece: Centerfor Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe), 132-147.

Katz, V. (2001) Workshops for the future. In C. Koulouri (ed.), Teaching the History ofSoutheastern Europe (Thessaloniki, Greece: Center for Democracy and Reconciliationin Southeast Europe), 61-67. Available online at: http://www.cdsee.org/history_see.html, accessed 30 March 2006.

Kieffer, C. (2005) Personal communication, 17 February 2004.Koren, S. (2002) A look in the broken mirror: Who is the 'other'? In C. Koulouri (ed.), Clio

in the Balkans. The Politics of History Education (Thessaloniki, Greece: Center forDemocracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe), 193-202.

Koulouri, C. (ed.) (2001) Teaching the History of Southeastern Europe (Thessaloniki, Greece:Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe). Available online at:http://www.cdsee.org/history_see.html, accessed 30 March 2006.

Koulouri, C. (ed.) (2002) Clio in the Balkans. The Politics of History Education (Thessaloniki,Greece: Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe).

Krinik-Bukic, V. (2001) The Bosnian question in ten pictures, trans D. Valenta and R.Angwin. In I. Lovrenovic and F. R. Jones (eds), Life at the Crossroads. Forum BosnaeCulture-Science-Society-Politics Quarterly Review, 11(1)(Sarajevo: International ForumBosnia), 107-119.

Lehti, M. (2000) Etnisen puhdistuksen trauma. Miten selitt Balkanin sotien vkivaltais-uus? [The trauma of ethnic cleansing: How to explain the violence of the wars in the

Balkans?]. In P. Kettunen, A. Kultanen and T. Soikkanen (eds), Jljill. Kirjoituksia historianongelmista [On Traces: Write-ups on the Problems of History], Part 2 (Turku, Finland:Kirja-Aurora). Lenhart, V., Kesidou, A. and Stockmann, S. (1999) The Curricula of the'National Subjects' in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Report to UNESCO (Heidelberg, Germany:Heidelberg University), 125-149.Low-Beer, A. (2001) Politics, school textbooks and cultural identity: the struggle in Bosnia

and Herzegovina. International Textbook Research, 23(2), 215-223.


21/21

96

Magas, B. (ed.) (1998) Question of Survival - A Common Educational System for Bosnia-Herzegovina (London: The Bosnian Institute).

Mathias, Y. (2002) The crisis of the national paradigm: history in Israeli curriculum duringthe 1990s. International Textbook Research, 24(4), 437-438.

Moscovici, S. (1988) Notes towards a description of social representations. EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 211-250.

Muli-Buatlija, S. (2001) Obrazovanje u BiH. Zajedniko dijeljene. [Education in BiH.JointDivision] Dani, 9. Novembar/studeni.

Najbar-Agi, M. (2002) Yugoslav history in Croatian textbooks. In C. Koulouri (ed.), Clioin the Balkans: The Politics of History Education (Thessaloniki, Greece: Center forDemocracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe), 232-248.

Peji, R. (1997) Dodatak udbeniku istorije za 8. Razred osnovne kole [Supplement to theHistory Textbook for the 8th Grade of the Primary School] (Srpsko Sarajevo: Zavodza udzbenike i nastavna sredstva Republike Srpske).

Pejic, R. (2000) Istorija za osmi razred osnovne kole [History for the 8th Grade of the PrimarySchool] (Srpsko Sarajevo: Zavod za udbenike i nastavna sredstva RepublikeSrpske).

Peri, I. (1995) Povijest za VIII. razred osnovne kole, 4th edn [History for the 8th Grade in the

Primary School](Zagreb: kolska knjiga).Pingel, F. (1999) UNESCO Guidebook on Textbook Research and Textbook Revision (Braun-

schweig, Germany: Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research).Pingel, F. (2003) No highway on the road-map to peace: a re-assessment of Israeli-

Palestinian textbook studies supported by the Georg Eckert Institute. InternationalTextbookResearch, 25(4), 343-369.

Repe, B. (2001) The situation regarding history textbooks in SEE. In C. Koulouri (ed.),Teaching the History of Southeastern Europe (Thessaloniki, Greece: Center forDemocracyand Reconciliation in Southeast Europe), 89-92. Available online at: http://www.cdsee.org/history_see.html, accessed 30 March 2006. Sander, R. P. (1995) The

contribution of post-World War II schools in Poland in forging anegative image of the Germans. East European Quarterly, 29(2), 185-196. Soule, S.

(2000) Beyond Communism and War: The Effect of Civic Education on the DemocraticAttitudes and Behavior of Bosnian and Herzegovinian Youth Available online at: http://www.civiced.org/eval_bih.pdf, accessed 27 March 2006. Stojanovic, D. (2002)

Yugoslavia in a broken mirror: the Serbian textbooks. In C. Koulouri(ed.), Clio in the Balkans. The Politics of History Education (Thessaloniki, Greece:Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe), 249-253. 'Teaching

History in Iraq' (2003) Teaching history in Iraq: Another vacuum opens up.What sort of history, if any, will Iraqi children have to learn? The Economist, 8-14November, 41.

Torsti, P. (2003) Divergent Stories, Convergent Attitudes: A Study on the Presence of History,History Textbooks and the Thinking of Youth in Post-War Bosnia and Herzegovina(Helsinki: Taifuuni).

how to deal with difficult past bosnia

Documents